Chemical evolution:

[Beer w/Straw]

Who cares.

No one has anything nice to say.

 

[Write4U]

Who cares.

No one has anything nice to say.

Seems, no one gets high......

 

[paddoboy]

No - you are wrong as usual. Check out Wikipedia on chemistry - the very first para in fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry
Chemistry only became possible post recombination era - already very low energy regime.

No problems, I accept that...the universe/space/time did though evolve to what we know today. [A shame though you still ignore the substance of my claim]

Your next two posts are as usual responses from incredulity. You can't conceive of an immaterial God so it just can't be. Therefore you have to believe in stupendous miracles of blind Nature instead.

The usual Pot. kettle, Black hypocrisy syndrome we often see from the God botherers!
C'mon q-reeus, you can do better then that!

 

[paddoboy]

Then you have me at a disadvantage - I have never literally tasted piss. Maybe because I have the good fortune not to be Australian.

Have an Xmas pint for me (not piss, your girlie lager)

PS. Seen written on the side of a lorry delivering red-blooded blokes beer to a local pub: "What are you afraid of lager boy? Afraid you'll taste something?".

Have a good one all of you

You to...and I have and already did...had a good one that is!!

 

[Write4U]

Q-reeus said: Chemistry only became possible post recombination era - already very low energy regime.

And what does that mean? You want high energy fusion or low energy combination?

• Before recombination, all of the electrons were free.
  
  
  • After recombination, the electrons and protons formed atoms.

http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/recombination.htm#:

The beginning of evolutionary processes, culminating in Abiogenesis.

See the list in Post #562 !

 

[paddoboy]

Right, "scientists assume", they don't know. Their assumption that the answer that they seek will be a natural answer discoverable by the means at hand is a working assumption, a heuristic.

Scientists make many assumptions, based on current observational and experimental evidence, and then proceed as if those reasonable assumptions are correct. We assume the homogenous and isotropic nature of the universe/space/time.
Theories, like assumptions are taken as true, until something more encompassing and better descriptive comes along.

 

[Write4U]

Question:
"Recombination Era"
IMO that is a complete misnomer. There was no hydrogen before the "Combination Era"!

When the universe was younger than about 300,000 years, the temperature was high enough that all of the hydrogen was ionized, that is the electrons were free and separate from the protons. Because of the presence of the free electrons, photons were scattered around in all directions and could not travel far before changing their direction. Therefore the universe was "opaque".

All of the hydrogen ? What hydrogen? "Recombination" suggests a prior existence of hydrogen, which is misleading.

When the universe cooled to about 3000 K, the electrons and protons combined to form hydrogren atoms. After "recombination", photons were able to travel through the universe relatively unimpeded, and the universe became "transparent".

That should read after "combination"

The photons emitted when atoms formed comprise the Primordial Background Radiation, the 3 degree blackbody radiation detected by Penzias and Wilson in 1965.

Therefore , no recombination, just combination, a non-trivial distinction re; Abiogenesis, or, for that matter; "irreducible complexity".............

 

[iceaura]

No what you leave out is the inability of a naked replicating entity to filter the correct enantiomers.

Because it's irrelevant.
Although, since it is also false (it rests on unsupported assumptions about the nature of the replicating entities involved, the location of the "filter", etc), if it didn't involve pages of extra typing to force the recognition of the earlier quick references to replicating clays and crystals and so forth, it could be handled fairly easily.

 

[Q-reeus]

Because it's irrelevant.
Although, since it is also false (it rests on unsupported assumptions about the nature of the replicating entities involved, the location of the "filter", etc), if it didn't involve pages of extra typing to force the recognition of the earlier quick references to replicating clays and crystals and so forth, it could be handled fairly easily.

Feeling the itch, the need to shit stir again? You misinterpret my intent and focus, probably intentionally. And just lie. This article is useful as antidote:
https://evolutionnews.org/2012/05/darwin-doubting/
Begin about half way down, where the topic changes from Darwinian evolution issues to prebiotic issues. The first two paras (but read all the rest):

C. Richard Boland of Baylor University Medical Center accuses Dr. Kuhn of offering a “rambling narrative.” Boland himself takes an evolution-of-the-gaps approach and states, “It’s a fool’s errand to make a case that anything is permanently beyond human comprehension.” His letter is full of errors. Boland claims the Miller-Urey experiments “provided hard evidence that complex compounds could evolve from simple ones in the soup,” but even Stanley Miller wouldn’t say that. Miller admitted that all they produced were monomers, not complex compounds. As an article in Discover Magazine stated:

Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market — all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done.5

READ THE REST. Committed materialists like yourself will never allow any doubt about your mainstream fantasy of unguided appearance of cellular life from simple prebiotic chemicals, but at least you will be confronted with challenges to that fantasy.

 

[Write4U]

READ THE REST. Committed materialists like yourself will never allow any doubt about your mainstream fantasy of unguided appearance of cellular life from simple prebiotic chemicals, but at least you will be confronted with challenges to that fantasy.

OK, I am one of them.
When was that Miller-Urey experiment? 70 years ago?

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. The experiment at the time supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that putative conditions on the primitive Earth favoured chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was performed in 1952 by Stanley Miller, supervised by Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, and published the following year.[3][4][5]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in the genetic code.[6] More recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment, but prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple-to-complex compounds under varying conditions.[7]

Racemic mixture

In chemistry, a racemic mixture, or racemate (/reɪˈsiːmeɪt,rə-,ˈræsɪmeɪt/),[1] is one that has equal amounts of left- and right-handed enantiomers of a chiral molecule. The first known racemic mixture was racemic acid, which Louis Pasteur found to be a mixture of the two enantiomeric isomers of tartaric acid. A sample with only a single enantiomer is an enantiomerically pure or enantiopure compound.[2]

Experiment

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4),
ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile 5-liter glass flask connected to a 500 ml flask half-full of water. The water in the smaller flask was heated to induce evaporation, and the water vapour was allowed to enter the larger flask. Continuous electrical sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning in the water vapour and gaseous mixture, and then the simulated atmosphere was cooled again so that the water condensed and trickled into a U-shaped trap at the bottom of the apparatus.

After a day, the solution collected at the trap had turned pink in colour, and after a week of continuous operation the solution was deep red and turbid.[3] The boiling flask was then removed, and mercuric chloride was added to prevent microbial contamination. The reaction was stopped by adding barium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, and evaporated to remove impurities. Using paper chromatography, Miller identified five amino acids present in the solution: glycine, α-alanine and β-alanine were positively identified, while aspartic acid and α-aminobutyric acid (AABA) were less certain, due to the spots being faint.[3]

In a 1996 interview, Stanley Miller recollected his lifelong experiments following his original work and stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."[8] [/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

The M-U experiment involved 1 location, 3 basic simple compounds, 1 element, and 1 week of exposure on the beach. The result yielded five amino acids present in the solution: glycine, α-alanine and β-alanine were positively identified, while aspartic acid and α-aminobutyric acid (AABA) were less certain, due to the spots being faint, which proved to be more than 20 different amino acids, by later, more sophisticated analysis.

Now, based on some obscure statements by some unknown researcher, you want to draw a conclusion that renders the entire hypothesis of abiogenesis false, from an opinion voiced about that single experiment, ignoring the fact that the entire earth is a laboratory, with an enormous wealth of available basic elements and simple compounds, over a time span of 3+ billion years of electrical bombardments and climate changes offering an enormous range of natural variable environmental conditions.

How can anyone make any kind of comparison between a single artificially created experiment and 3+ billion years of planetary chemical activities which, according to Hazen, yielded some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion = 2 x 10^54 chemical reactions.

Come on......you call that article a serious challenge to a mainstream scientific "fantasy"?
You cannot be serious..........

p.s. Your Discovery Institute is a not a Scientific Academy or publication, it's an advocate and propaganda machine for Intelligent Design .
https://www.discovery.org/id/

 

[Q-reeus]

OK, I am one of them.
When was that Miller-Urey experiment? 70 years ago?

Racemic mixture

Experiment In a 1996 interview, Stanley Miller recollected his lifelong experiments following his original work and stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

The M-U experiment involved 1 location, 3 basic simple compounds, 1 element, and 1 week of exposure on the beach.

The result yielded five amino acids present in the solution: glycine, α-alanine and β-alanine were positively identified, while aspartic acid and α-aminobutyric acid (AABA) were less certain, due to the spots being faint, which proved to be more than 20 different amino acids, by later, more sophisticated analysis.

Now, based on some obscure statements by some unknown researcher, you want to draw a conclusion that renders the entire hypothesis of abiogenesis false, from an opinion voiced about that single experiment, ignoring the fact that the entire earth is a laboratory, with an enormous wealth of available basic elements and simple compounds, over a time span of 3+ billion years of electrical bombardments and climate changes offering an enormous range of natural variable environmental conditions.

How can anyone make any kind of comparison between a single artificially created experiment and 3+ billion years of planetary chemical activities which, according to Hazen, yielded some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion = 2 x 10^54 chemical reactions.

Come on......you call that article a serious challenge to a mainstream scientific "fantasy"?
You cannot be serious..........

p.s. Your Discovery Institute is a not a Scientific Academy or publication, it's an advocate and propaganda machine for Intelligent Design .
https://www.discovery.org/id/

The buffalo canters down to muddy the waters. Strange that you emphasize racemic mixtures re result of Miller-Urey experiment. That highlights the biological inefficacy of that experiment. And of numerous follow-on variants to this day. Oh and btw the starting assumption of Miller-Urey was a reducing atmosphere which is now known to be wrong. So in reality a double disaster for you and ilk. As for those 'huge' numbers re total numbers of chemical reactions on Earth over 3+ billion years, it's also doubly misleading. For starters, the time frame for first appearance of life is far less, but most relevantly, the implicit assumption that each reaction was 'a unique experiment' is hopelessly wrong. In fact, a relative handful of uniquely different reactions would simply repeat ad infinitum (absent ID). None of these correctives will stop True Believers like you from persisting in promoting your unworkable fantasy with as usual shouting text.

 

[Write4U]

For starters, the time frame for first appearance of life is far less, but most relevantly, the implicit assumption that each reaction was 'a unique experiment' is hopelessly wrong.

Are we talking about polymerization or the appearance of life?

In fact, a relative handful of uniquely different reactions would simply repeat ad infinitum (absent ID).

Wrong again. This was an exponential process. Expand your horizons!
Let me repeat a previous quote; Glossary of chemical formulae. Just have a peek!
This complements alternative listing at inorganic compounds by element. There is no complete list of chemical compounds since by nature the list would be infinite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_chemical_formulae

None of these correctives will not stop True Believers like you from persisting in promoting your unworkable fantasy with as usual shouting text.

Oh, how you torture logic.......

Believer ;

2. an adherent of a particular religion; someone with religious faith: "the relationship into which God invites believers"

Oxford Dictionary.

I raised my voice in the hope you were hard of hearing, but I understand now that it is merely a refusal on your part to listen to logical reason in favor of an infantile "fantasy", which of course is the mark of a True Believer......

 

[Q-reeus]

This was an exponential process....

You are (ignorantly) claiming an out of control chemical chain reaction! Link to any reputable article backing that absurd statement.
What you carefully excluded from responding to is telling. I'm pretty sure you couldn't be bothered actually reading the article I linked to. Remain in ignorance of the real issues then.

 

[paddoboy]

You are (ignorantly) claiming an out of control chemical chain reaction!

You mean as opposed to your god of the gaps filler, due to your personal incredulity?

 

[Q-reeus]

You mean as opposed to your god of the gaps filler, due to your personal incredulity?

The 'gaps' are in reality impassible chasms for your mainstream fantasy. I can bet you also are too lazy to read the article I posted. Remain comforted with the supposed wondrous abilities of blind Nature.

 

[Write4U]

You are (ignorantly) claiming an out of control chemical chain reaction! Link to any reputable article backing that absurd statement.

Clearly you do not understand the "exponential function". I would suggest you read prof. Albert Bartlett;
Views on population growth

Bartlett often explained how sustainable growth is a contradiction. His view was based on the fact that a modest percentage growth will equate to huge escalations over relatively short periods of time.[8]

Bartlett made statements relating to sustainability:

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett

What you carefully excluded from responding to is telling. I'm pretty sure you couldn't be bothered actually reading the article I linked to. Remain in ignorance of the real issues then.

When I see that an article is written in a religious publication I stop reading. I prefer science magazines over Comic fiction, such as ;

Of Pandas & People (School-level textbook promoting intelligent design)

Presents the scientific rationale for intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism, from origin of life series, biochemistry, genetics, homology, and paleontology. This supplemental biology textbook provides an index, glossary, references, suggested reading, and resources to help facilitate understanding of the material. Enhanced by the use of diagrams, charts, illustrations, and color pictur... goodreads.com

Wiki

Of Pandas and People: A Brief Review
The Fossil Record

Pandas seriously misrepresents the nature of the fossil record. For example, on pages 99-100 the authors of Pandas have written:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing."

Actually, a close examination of the fossil record supplies scores of examples that show the gradual appearance of a wide variety of physical adaptations, including, for example, the vertebrate limb. Pandas wishes to claim that abrupt appearances of critical features (which might be taken to support design) characterize the fossil record. Unfortunately, this contention does not square with the facts. The earliest known fish, for example, were quite different from the fish we recognize today. The earliest fossil forms lacked many of the characteristics possessed by fish today, including jaws, paired limbs and bony internal skeletons, and yet Pandas wishes to tell students that fish (and all fossil forms) appear in the fossil record "with their distinctive features intact.......more

https://ncse.ngo/pandas-and-people-brief-review

btw, who is Dr. Joseph Kuhn? A Bariatric surgeon, a Nephrologist, a Family Medicine Dr? Just cannot seem to find a reference to molecular biology in a person by that name.

 

[iceaura]

You misinterpret my intent and focus, probably intentionally. And just lie.

For example?

As far as I can tell:
You posted a claim that the inability of "naked replicating entity" to filter enantiomers was significant. I quoted it. I then pointed out that the claim was both irrelevant (evolutionary sequences do not require "naked" replicating entities to filter enantiomers) and false (we see naked clays and crystals - as mentioned several times now - filtering enantiomers, and many proteins etc crystallize or form complex shapes that react much differently to different enantiomers).

Where's the lie?

READ THE REST.

The part you quoted was completely familiar, just as your earlier claims and quotes have been - part of a muddled and long debunked approach that still exists mainly to support a few Creationist charlatans in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. I'll just take your word, and your quotes, for it.

Besides: Somebody who thinks the universal chirality of the genetic code (a solid and persuasive indication of common descent) is in itself evidence against Darwinian evolutionary development is hardly worth reading in depth - the first requirement of any argument against an evolutionary explanation is that the arguer has to understand Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Committed materialists like yourself will never allow any doubt about your mainstream fantasy of unguided appearance of cellular life from simple prebiotic chemicals, - -

That's no fantasy of mine - where is this "mainstream"? Who's in it?

Immaterialists like myself think that cellular life probably emerged over millions of years on a planet covered with trillions of very, very complex combinations of biotic chemicals, assemblages and interactions that met many of the requirements of "life".

If you have to tell other people what they think in order to disparage it there's probably something wrong with your assumptions, no?
- - - -

When one considers the technical details, it gets very complicated very fast.

That appears to be the actual foundation for every creationist argument - it's what all the bullshit "probability" calculations appear to have been invoked to support, what all this crap about "naked replicators" and some alleged problem with chirality breaks down to, and so forth.

 

[paddoboy]

The 'gaps' are in reality impassible chasms for your mainstream fantasy. I can bet you also are too lazy to read the article I posted. Remain comforted with the supposed wondrous abilities of blind Nature.

Imppasible chasms??? But your omnipotent, all powerful, all knowing IDer, whoever he or she maybe is within your realism of possibility?
Thank Christ though that the vast majority of educated reputable scientists agree with me.

 

[Q-reeus]

Clearly you do not understand the "exponential function"...

No the misunderstanding is all yours. I realized you meant exponential growth, and applied to prebiotic world chemistry it's absurdly out of place. But you are too vain to concede.

 

[Q-reeus]

You posted a claim that the inability of "naked replicating entity" to filter enantiomers was significant. I quoted it. I then pointed out that the claim was both irrelevant (evolutionary sequences do not require "naked" replicating entities to filter enantiomers)

You are ignorant then that peptide chains growing in a racemix mix of amino acids will themselves have racemic chirality precisely because chirality is unimportant for simple chain growth. There is no 'filtering' in such an environment. It is however vital for there to be homochirality in any biological setting. Inexplicable via blind Nature. Your clays are of no practical use in altering that.

and false (we see naked clays and crystals - as mentioned several times now - filtering enantiomers, and many proteins etc crystallize or form complex shapes that react much differently to different enantiomers).
Where's the lie?

Point to a single instance in the literature where clays or other inorganic 'templates' have enabled homochiral long molecular chains. Which (nonexistent) feat would still be very very far from achieving cellular life. Since among many other things, such chains would be devoid of specified information which is at the heart of biological processes.